Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday February 03, 2009 @05:50AM
from the intentionally-retarded-titles dept.

In order to demonstrate the ridiculousness of some recent studies which grabbed media headlines by claiming "links" between video games and all sorts of negative behavior (such as violence and the lower-quality relationships), Ars Technica's Ben Kuchera did an experiment of his own: "I started calling people I knew, and I asked if they had one or more video games in the house. Then I asked if they breast-fed their children. To my great shock, most answered 'yes' to both. One couple I contacted switched to formula after their child's birth, and told me that they didn't play video games. The data, based on my first round of calls, was conclusive: if you play video games, you are much more likely to breast-feed your children. You're probably ready to shoot five thousand holes in my argument. ... I did my job though, and you clicked on the headline." He goes on point out flaws in media reports and legislation involving such claims.

This is actually an important issue for those of us that care about games, and whilst it is a bit prankish, it not 'just some prank'. Anyway, there's no category on Slashdot for 'preaching to the converted', it's just a general assumption that news articles will fit the bent of the site.

The problem is, he's not even demonstrating correlation in a statistically meaningful fashion, which is what those studies achieved. Congratulations to him on producing an argument of even less value than those he's criticising.

I'd say it is bigger than just video games. The type of thinking he is attacking has existed in one form or another for many, many years. He even mentions it in the article. Somewhere I read them called social demons, they are essentially scapegoats for society to blame abnormal behavior on. So long as we set up our collective social demons, whether it be videogames or rap music or whatever, we revert to an unscientific approach of fearmongering rather than a scientific discovery of the root causes of social ills. It is made even worse when someone makes a psuedoscientific claim that is obviously flawed to those who regularly do science but sounds "scientific and factual" to the general public. This article is about the abuse of science to shape the social consciousness. Most certainly "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters."

It's implied that the studies are as valueless as his example, though. While nonintervention studies are not as valuable as newspaper articles would suggest, they are still important in determining which areas merit causation-demonstrating, intervention-based studies. The problem is the reporting, not the research itself.